Does Enemy at the Gates get it right? - Historical Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- I did a newer and more updated version of this review that you should watch here: • The Charge at Red Squa...
Does a good movie make for a good HISTORICAL movie? In this review, we analyze the portrayal of the Red Army, Order 227, human wave tactics, and more. See below for sources.
I would not describe myself or the point of this review as "communist sympathy." I think that the film combines and simplifies accounts in its critique of Stalin and the USSR and moves away from historical accuracy. As I state in the video, there are very real and well-documented episodes of dehumanization and brutality in Stalingrad and the USSR as a whole, so I believe that the film undercuts its own argument by stereotyping the Red Army as a horde of peasants motivated only by fear. See my pinned comment for some accounts of these events and more detail on why I think they are a simplification.
Join me to learn a little about the Eastern Front as we look at 2001's Enemy at the Gates.
Interested in my sources? Here are some links to the different books that made up the bulk of this video.
DISCLAIMER: This video description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links below, I’ll receive a small commission.
David M. Glantz and Jonathan M. House, Stalingrad (multi-volume series, read them all!)
amzn.to/2vGifAJ
Michael K. Jones - Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed
amzn.to/2PMalza
Disagree with me? Antony Beevor's - Stalingrad may be the inspiration for some of the events in the movie.
amzn.to/2DR4X92
I did a far more updated version of this review that you should probably watch here: ua-cam.com/video/LYiuGAiIvjY/v-deo.html
sure cuz 2 versions of history is super common
Why do you feel the need to call it political decisions? What do you even mean? These are narrative decisions and have nothing to do with politics. Who benefits from the 'political' decision of portraying the Sovjets as worse as they were (if that is even possible)?
You feel the Sovjets are portrayed as monsters? Good, they were. Go to Lithuania or some of the other countries they have invaded and see for yourself. They would torture boyscouts to death over owning a Lithuanian flag. Cut off their genitals, burn their eyes out, pull tongues out and the like.
ua-cam.com/video/UQ8JJiHRTUQ/v-deo.html
My grandfater fight in the WW2 with the germany . Say me some story :The aly lines from the river one side the sovjets the other my grandfater get some food for the frend , i dtk the name so the frend eating and the grandpa see 3 boot frome the sovjet side coming ...so my grandpa get the MG 42and ....like gandalf noone not pass... after is hapend grandpa run out the fireposition get maybe 100 meter , and see get mortal attak the place is shouting before ! So what is hapend : sovjets sacrifice 60+ man only for get out the MG ! So the stalingrad battle in the film is posible hapend , the sovjets lost 3 x soliders tank and flightplane all in the war
Of course it's a dramatization, but there really was a Vasily Zaitsev en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Zaitsev_(sniper)
I remember a story about when this movie came out in theaters in Russia, a special screening has been organized for a group of Russian veterans of WW2. After watching it, they came out cursing and spitting and said this movie is an insult and it wasn't like that at all during the war.
Lmao and wehrbs use this movie as a source and counts them as facts for their shitty arguements
@@unclelarry8842 This movie is complete fiction
Movie is total bullshit. Anti soviet propaganda.
@r33mote here comes the wehraboo! If your so certain why don’t you debunk the video?
@@jawshvancouver2754 he didn’t even say it was wrong
About 227: In Stalingrad, 244 soldiers were imprisoned, 278 were shot, 218 were sent to penal companies, 42 to penal battalions and 14,833 to return to their units.
This whole myth of mowing down retreating units is BS.
Yeah, the closest recorded incident was when an officer ordered the machine gunners to fire ABOVE the retreating soldiers, to stop the retreat, which succeeded, the Red Army troops regrouped and attacked again, and eventually took the positions.
@Robert Leruyet not sure which video. But search for David Glantz. Retired colonel US Army. He had access to Soviet records, in the 90's.
He has written a few books about the Soviet war effort as wel.
Been an long time ago since I dug into his resources. So you might have to search a bit.
@r33mote I never said it made it "cool", I just said that (as far as written records go) there's no confirmed examples of Commisars firing directly into their own retreating soldiers, that's all.
@r33mote what's your problem, man?
Where did you get those absolutely wrong numbers
I remember in my country a lot of people called this film "Idiots at the gate"
i love this. it's so accurate
"Thằng ngu trước cổng" :))
Long story short: it's a typical piece of Hollywood revisionism.
Actually, I believe that this was far more of an European production with Paramount just distributing it in the US.
It's not really revisionism since this is actually what a lot of historians believed during the cold war. The biggest tragedy of ww2 historiography was that the Soviet sources were unavailable for 50 years, so historians relied on butthurt German commanders who could conveniently blame Hitler and the winter for everything.
@@videosteward partly true! For sure. But there were Soviet accounts and memoires, just no-one translated them. Definitely not on purpose, because there is no propaganda in the West :D
@Max Schultz Aka, Hollywood bullshit.
@@videosteward This film was made long after the cold war.
A Hollywood movie isn’t historically accurate?? My life is a lie....
Jajajajajajaja
I SO believed in Braveheart and The Patriot,
Some are more so than others. They are not documentaries. Some documentaries are the worse. Ask fat man michael moore.
But it is. This was at the end of September, when _"the NKVD organised poorly armed "Workers' militias" similar to those that had defended the city twenty-four years earlier, composed of civilians not directly involved in war production for immediate use in the battle. The civilians were often sent into battle without rifles."_
Between the 18th and the 21st of September blocking detachments shot 278 retreating men. The soviets had do defend the ferries to their supplies on the east bank of the Volga at all costs, but at that time, there were only 1,500 real soldiers out of 20,000 defenders (most of them students, women and militias). Even the first reinforcements, including Zaitsev's 284th Rifle Division, still lacked equipment but was send in battle.
Enemy at the Gates takes place from September 13, 1942 to February 2, 1943. So it is accurate, but shows the few days of a completely desperate exceptional situation, not the norm.
@@doofkos
1.soviets never crossed the river on day, only at night.
2.there were no weapon deficit in Stalingrad and "call of duty" style 1 rifle per 2 men and 5 bullets.
3. No nkvd with machine guns killing its soldiers like maniacs
4. No locking soldiers in the trains
5. No shooting down desetiers during river crossing
In fact all the film is propaganda bullshit
And by Order 227 "Retreat" means moving the defensive line back.
If their push failed. It's natural to fall back into the defensive line.
Blocking detachment in the movie is too absurd to be true.
It is hard to really go in-depth in a video this short, but while they existed in some forms before 1942, Order 227 was really aimed at curbing the massive and unsanctioned retreats all the way across the Don Basin leading up to the battle itself. Hard figures are difficult to find due to the nature of the NKVD, but Soviet attacks failed frequently, and machine-gunning healthy men rather then throwing them back into the fight was far from the norm. Beevor gives the rather high figure of 13,500 killed throughout the city, but Jones argues that this number is far too high and that is was across the whole Stalingrad Front, and not just the city itself, though other historians debate even that number. The fact is that for any given period, most NKVD arrests ended in most regular infantry being sent back to the front, in their units or in penal battalions. If not, there was also re-education or the gulag, with executions usually being public and as a deterrent for others. The film takes this and mushes it all together to make a point, which could have been made with more subtly. The game "Men at War" actually has the player character's unit get accused of cowardice and sentenced to a penal battalion. The level after is a very challenging defense of a railyard during a factory evacuation. It shows the brutality of the system, but underlines that the goal was often military use and not just wanton destruction. Even in the film, with the whole retreat being gunned-down, who would be left alive to be cowed into submission?
Film director is a French and shooting their own people is just a French WW1 tradition. Since French did not really experience WW2, the director just simply apply their own WW1 experience ( ･᷄ὢ･᷅ )
Blocking detachments were used, howe they were only placed behind units that proved to be unstable and prone to mutiny. Their main job was to make sure that the soldiers didn't flee from their duty and, yes, execute people, however, the only people they would kill would be people spreading panic amongst the soldiers and officers who kept themselves out of danger.
During stalingrad, a group of NKVD officers moved their HQ from the city to an island in the Volga, while their soldiers remained in the city and were killed in the thousands, while the officers fled to relative safety. The man in charge, Chuikov, found out about this, and recalled all of that units soldiers from the city, explained to them that their officers were cowards and were sending them do die while they sat in safety, he then had the officers executed, and the soldiers were given their revenge against the officers who held their lives as cheap
@@HistoryClarified um you do realize that the Russians claim to only loss 271 men in the 1939 invasion of Poland.. i know a military historian who says that that's how many they lost getting prepared for the war ( have jokingly but with truth) you gotta understand how much the Russians lied the order 227 was to mow down retreating units not whole divisions. You claim Stalin was not happy about this but i can guarantee you he did not care one bit about the soldiers all he cared about was him winning. I can give many manyyyy examples of Stalin not giving 2 craps about his citizens.
John he was not happy about the unsanctioned retreats. Due to Soviet sources, books in the 60’s and 70’s wrote that the Soviets learned how to do orderly retreats, but we now know the commanders at the highest levels did not order these, at least in a timely manner, and it was junior officers and the men running to avoid a repeat of 1941.
Wow I see where Call of Duty 1 Finest Hour and the original got its inspiration from lmao
Yeah, the old Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games, though fun, are rather transparent in how they “borrow” from film.
Lol I remember using cheat codes in Finest Hour and charging at the German MG42s with only a stripper clip or just going face to face with a commissar only to be smacked around 😂
lesley leslie agreed
“THE FIRST MAN GETS A RIFLE” that scene and entire section of the game sticks with me well over a decade later 🤷♂️ probably one if not the fondest memory in gaming I have 🔥
That and the charge at the idk hotel with the machine guns when all your comrades are dying and stuff, and the battle in red square holy shit that was a good game gonna have to replay it somehow ✌️
@@climax050 That charge at the hotel with the bombers going over you right? That's what Pavlov's House was. That was THE apartment building Pavlov and his men defended in fact Pavlov is right there with you.
it's a Hollywood movie. what did you expect? at least they don't claim that Stalingrad was an American town.
BTW: the German Wehrmacht also had their blocking detachments. Feldwebels (aka Kettenhunde) and SS patrolled behind the lines to catch "defectors"
Feldwebel is a military rank, equivalent to a sergeant. What you are referring to is the Feldgendarmerie, the military police. However, while they did execute deserters, especially at the end of the war, I have never heard of them doing anything like what is portrayed in the movie, namely to shoot at retreating soldiers.
Yep, it was Feldgendarmerie... my mistake!
Juliewood
Isn't it strange that US units did not need or have blocking units? Typically in the US, members of a broken unit on the front would simply be absorbed into the new units coming into battle. New units would use their experience and information to better formulate battle tactics to better engage the enemy. This did not happen a lot but it did happen.
@@a1kjlarson The US though did also have the luxury of being able to train their soldiers properly before sending them overseas. Also they had the manpower to send veterans back home to to improve the training of the fresh recruits.
There is a reason why many German tank and fighter aces have so many kills...they basically fought straight throughout the full war. A lot of US aces were just as good, but could be rotated out and sent back for training the fresh units.
First off as a history buff (I am a massive fan of Russian history) thank you for talking about Order 227. This was basically put in place for entire armies retreating across Russia. Stalin was not an idiot and he knew the Germans would reach Moscow eventually and could completely surround it if his armies kept retreating. Also, in Stalingrad small scale retreats happened all the time so why kill your own men and waste the ammo you don't have. I just wish you talked more about how important the Volga River was. The Germans could never control it entirely and Stalingrad was controlled mostly entirely by the Germans at one point except for that damn train station. Anyway, overall, I liked your video. Keep it up.
I completely agree with what you said. Except Stalin not being an idiot.
@@cherminatorDR Being a machiavellian dictator and being an idiot are two seperate things. No idiot gets to hold on power unless he is a puppet.
@@joek600 OK, maybe not an idiot in general, but he very much overestimated his military expertise
cherminatorDR But he did know when to step back. Hitler on the other hand ......
@@BernardSolomon Well, I wouldn't say that - the Red Army was already in full on disorganized retreat, and he actually had to set limits on when and where that should be done. And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't his initial measures more draconian, and his marshals had to talk him down a bit?
"Does enemy at the gates get it right?"
Oh boy I can't wait to see!
*Enemy at the gates gets history wrong*
Oh well.
I think you can assume going in that all movies, and I do literally mean ALL OF THEM, based on history, are going to get the history portion significantly wrong. So enjoy the story--look up the history later. ;-)
@@MarkWrightPsuedo Not some of great movies about the Eastern front.. Like 'Come and See' and 'Stalingrad'. It's just a matter of experience. America or the UK never fought in such a devastating war, or a battle that was close to the size of the battle of Stalingrad. Many Soviet filmmakers were in this war, hence why these movies are considered classics and true to themselves, and truly artistic masterpieces.
You would be surprised how many ppl think this movie is accurate
I think it was so bad the movie wasn't allowed in russia
*Sad Zoidberg noises*
Finally! I've been looking for someone to criticise the utter nonsense that Enemy at he Gates has falsely led so many to believe. I am getting sick and tired of teachers and others saying that the Soviets hardly ever had guns to fight with, and that many were thrown into battle with their bare hands. Hopefully your video will inspire others to look back on the horrible film, and correct their false concepts of the Patriotic War.
Thank you for the comment! I'm hoping that as the video reaches more people that it actually does change minds and get people to think more critically about taking history films as fact.
@@HistoryClarified Thank you for the video! I'll be sure to share it whenever someone asks why and how Enemy at the Gates falls into outdated Cold War tropes.
@@silvesby Thank you for that! Hopefully it will change their minds. The sooner human wave and man with the rifle myths die, the better!
@@HistoryClarified Does anybody actually "take history films as fact?" I'm pretty sure everyone with an IQ above room temperature is well aware that historical films are heavily dramatized. The most I hear anybody say is usually "I bet that's pretty close to how it happened." I don't see anybody referring to Band of Brothers or Enemy at the Gates as a factual source. What I see a lot more often is self-proclaimed history buffs trying to "flex their knowledge" by pointing out minor inaccuracies in films that never pretended to be "accurate."
I'm all for historical accuracy in films, but there's a line between making a documentary and making an entertaining movie. It's the same thing as adapting a book into a movie. You can't recount the book line by line, scene by scene -- so things get boiled down and distilled into more digestible chunks, with (hopefully) the same flavor.
It's impossible to portray a more nuanced/accurate version of Order 227 and get the point across. Any attempt to qualify it like "well they didn't _ackchually_ shoot everybody who ran" would be too convoluted. Obviously that order wasn't enforced to the letter, but they took it seriously enough... You could even be shot for _failing to shoot someone else who ran._ I never took it to say "oh man the soviets were so mean and the officers are so ruthless" - what went through my head was "wow they must have been really fucking desperate".
The movie embellishes a few things, but overall it communicates the truth: the Soviets did treat their men somewhat more "disposably" than other armies did. They spent as many lives defending Stalingrad as the US spent over the course of the whole war. They were also the only country that didn't hesitate to put women into front line combat (which EATG kinda portrayed), creating some of the most feared units of the whole war.
On one hand, much of their desperation and brutality was necessary because they were in the middle of a desperate and brutal fight. On the other hand, bureaucracy had a way of overpowering common sense just like it did at Chernobyl. There is at least one instance where entire units were sent into combat with little or no weapons and completely annihilated (although it sounds more like someone fucked up, rather than ordering it intentionally). One instance of a unit being forced to cross a river, to their deaths. Simply because they were ordered to advance a certain distance, completed 99% of it, and field officers weren't allowed to make the obvious judgement call to stop on the safe side of the river - _despite_ informing their commanders that they had no crossing equipment and would almost certainly die. So the men were forced to cross and very few survived.
You mentioned the penal battalions, some of which became respected fighters, while others were used for mine clearing and general cannon fodder.
No movie could really portray all of that. So if EATG chose to make the blocking units _actually_ fire, as shorthand for... all that other stuff, I think that's perfectly reasonable.
There's a podcast called Hardcore History, hosted by Dan Carlin. It's an absolute must-sub for history lovers. He did a series of 4 episodes called Ghosts of the Ostfront, which I strongly recommend, but it's an older one so it's archived now. Meaning you have to pay for it, which I did happily because nobody covers topics like this better than Dan.
Drew Kosonen I know some relatively smart people that believe the rumors about “not a step back”. Most people that watched the film were probably still under the red scare’s influence and likely believed that the Soviets would do something like this, even if it’s completely illogical, because communism bad. Later on, I think these rumors detached themselves from the original film and they became so widespread that most people just thought it was common knowledge. Now, it’s less stupid people believe everything a movie says and more just one of those everyday myths people take at face value and don’t really look at that closely
Great video that debunks the "soviet human waves" myth.
However there's a small, just tiny mistake: at 4:18 you say that the NKVD is the secret political police, but to be fair the NKVD wasn't any secret police, as they were pretty much a standard police force that treated with local order, border patrols, anti-party activities and so on.
Some NKVD units fought at Stalingrad with the 62nd Army varying in degrees of effectiveness: some units fell back within few hours of combat, others stood up nicely.
But anyway, pretty good video (even though I'm a bit late).
True enough. Newer research shows that the NKVD and blocking detachments:
1. were sometimes the evil secret police portrayed in memoirs
2. were used as front-line troops. Sometimes bravely, sometimes not.
3. Sometimes used in rear or logistical duties.
@Alpotnunge
The NKVD also carried out intelligence and counterintelligence functions.
NKVD: People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs which People's Commissariat is what Soviet used to call Ministry. So basically NKVD is Ministry of Internal Affairs. Having NKVD officer command and shoting at soldiers like having police officer nowday command army soldiers and marines, just ridiculous.
Funnily enough in a few instances where the 10th NKVD division was fighting at Stalingrad, being underequipped and with less combat experience, some units that retreated where stopped by the Army, having the situation reversed on how it was supposed to be.
@@HistoryClarified Blocking detachment were subordinated to the army commander. That is, it was up to Chuikov (for example) where he wanted his BD placed. The funny thing that according to the order that created this units officially there were supposed to be made of soldiers who had proven that they can maintain their composure under dire circumstances. Because of that they quite often performed functionality of mobile reserve rather that the role that was assigned to them (and quite a few commanders really did not like the concept of blocking detachment to begin with. I have seen several reports describing BD stopping the panicked troops and then leading the counterattack rather than threatening to shoot everybody who retreats.
Also, I think you are mixing up penal battalions and penal companies. Penal battalions consisted of the officers that did something that landed them on the wrong side of the Soviet Military Code. Penal companies consisted of the enlisted men and NCO that did the same. There is a boo sold on Amazon “Penalty Strike: The Memoirs of a Red Army Penal Company Commander 1943-45” that goes into the all the details and differences.
In the French imagination, you only fight for your motherland when your officers are pointing guns at your back.
Thanks for this review, as a Russian myself and a son and grandson of WWII veterans, I was totally disgusted with the Enemy at the Gates - a caricature not on the system but on the Soviet people in general, who fought bravely and gallantly not because of the NKVD detachments behind them.
One minor correction - in no way affecting the essence:
ordinary soldiers and sergeants would go to penal companies; officers would go to penal battalions (normally - one for the whole “front” which was the biggest strategic unit in the Red Army - a group of infantry and tank armies); of course, there were exceptions and mishaps.
And a few more comments:
- crossing the Volga would normally be done at night (since Germans were in some places hundreds meters from the river + dominated in the air) - although you are right that in a desperate situation there could be an exception (I can recollect only the one that you mention);
- the NKVD block units were normally formed out of not cowards but experienced soldiers, often - taken there after a hospital; so they new the stuff and there were several documented cases in Stalingrad when such units themselves held the front line to the last man standing;
- on the other hand, the number of executed is, realistically, even bigger that the official record - some were executed just in trenches (not necessarily by NKVD, it could be just a desperate infantry officer shooting a young frightened soldier for disobeying his order to advance - although of course it was not a common practice by all means);
- I really disliked the way the movie showed the battle of Stalingrad centered around a duel of two snipers (up to the point that the Soviets let Germans know of their offensive just to help Zaitsev; it was ridiculous);
- lastly, Zaitsev himself was in reality not a young naive lad but ... a clerk who was serving in the Soviet Navy at the Far East since 1937 and then sent to the battle aged 26 or 27; his childhood was indeed full of hunting experience. This last point is NOT a blame - it is a fiction film after all, I mention it just to stress how far even the main hero showed most positively and humanly out of all Russians in the film is far from the historical reality.
Thank you for the nuanced comment. I agree that in criticizing the system, the film seems to portray the Red Army as a horde of peasants. Like you say, with the real brutality of the NKVD, I don’t k ow why the film has to go off of and perpetuate myths and stereotypes.
Согласен 100%
Red army was a bunch of peasants. They were low, drunk, undisciplined mob commanded by upstart peasents whose only millitary experience was brutalizing Russian, Ukrainian and Lithuanian countryside.
@@MkZuO12345 Yeah sure. Always remember what everything they say on TV is 100% true
@@MkZuO12345 sounds more like the late war Axis Army huh.
The sniper duel was a nonsense. There were hundreds of snipers in Stalingrad on both sides and their job was to kill ordinary soldiers and especially officers and sap morale. The German in the film wasn't even there. Antony Beevor's book Stalingrad is an excellent account of the battle.
Yeah, I wanted to focus on the myth and beginning and didn’t get to the part about the whole premise probably being fiction. I like the Beevor account quite a bit, and think if people read Beevor and Jones in tandem, then they’ll see two different perspectives and can better evaluate as they read Glantz and House.
Anthony Beevors book on history is more anti-soviet propoganda not based on reality. His books are easy to debunk.
Alt - Monarchist - I didn't notice any-Soviet sentiment in this or his other books on WW2. That doesn't mean it's not there. He certainly has some bees in his bonnet - his dislike of Montgomery, for instance - but I thought his Stalingrad was one of his better books.
cdeford The story is same(almost) from the book Days and Nights by Konstantine Simonov written in 1945. Great read if you’re a history guy! It is fiction. No could deny that Stalingrad was a brutal battlefield !
The duel happened read a few books on the eastern front. Also, for those who think the eastern front was the worse place to be, read a few books on the Pacific.
The film also forgets that Vasily was already famous by the time of Stalingrad, he would've most certainly been given a rifle, and plenty of ammo.
This is patently false. Vasily was not known from any other soldier in that time, he volunteered for the navy and then requested a transfer to the frontline later. His own diary speaks to that effect.
It really frustrates me how de-humanized they make the soviets out to be. As if men would charge and fight in stupid waves. People strategically retreated, fought with squad tactics, etc.
I feel the same way because people like you said just de-humanize the soviets even though they were probably the bravest in the whole war. But its straight up disrespectful and it needs to stop. In reality the soviets were really good at using combined arms because georgy zhukov was really got at that and that could be shown at kurks
WTF are you serious? This video is shit, soviets dehumanized not only soldier, but also civils. Google about holadomor and soviet deadth camps. This film show dehumanization even smaller than actually it was. Fucking westerns do not understand nothing.
@@dailypunch6249 Soviets were nothing more than war criminals, not heroes, just fucking criminals. Nothing more.
@@tadassamusis5792 Yea they did commit war crimes no one is denying it and I never said they were heroes but you cant deny before operation barbarossa the allies were getting their shit pushed in by Germans in the Western and African front. Im not saying the Soviets won the war but they were a huge part in the war and without them god knows what would happen I mean the axis had the Allies by their wrist by mid 1940 and they did not make any huge progress till 43 when they started to take italy and 44 when America joined the war in Europe. Yes the Soviet union was cruel but dehumanizing everyone but 85-90% of their casualties were from the beginning of operation barbarossa like after Stalingrad and Leningrad and they started to get their production on track. I mean at this time the Soviet Union was moving their major factories from the West to the East to move them away from the Nazi advance and I pretty sure one of their Major factories were in Stalingrad. But yea this movie is not accurate and it just follows the myth of mass soviet charges because it looks better for the movie. And also alot of also came from Stalin and Stalin was careless and I think if they had someone else they would have done better. He was very selfless and made all of the Soviet Union revolve around himself.
@@tadassamusis5792 I didn't mean dehumanize in the sense you mean. You mean something along the lines of acting cruelly to others or stripping people of life, dignity, and property. I think being cruel is actually a rather human quality and potraying people as cruel is not dehumanizing them. I also don't see how someone suffering from such treatment is dehumanizing because being oppressed is also a pretty common human experience. I meant dehumanizing as in a lack of faithfully portraying the Russians as people with the human characteristics of common sense, strategy, and ingenuity. They make the Russians behave stupidly the way an animal would. I have a big book of photographs, and none of them portray sending Russians in one non-cohesive wave armed with bolt action rifles against a dug in position with tanks and machine guns. Its not even how such rifles are meant to be deployed. I can believe desperate Russian commanders treating their soldiers as expendable. But they are also a resource. Any common sense human being could easily see this is a waste of men and all the resources it took to cloth them, arm them, feed them, and transport them to the frontline.
It's kind of weird that the film exaggerates the desperation and ruthlessness of the Soviet army. The reality is more than convincing enough. Unfortunately you still see this sort of thing today. Chernobyl was in many ways a great series, but it really played up the threat of arbitrary execution. They adopt some of the trappings of the USSR of the 30s, which are entirely out of place in the 80s.
I often say that it's best to describe Enemy at the Gates as being based more on a legend than history.
I wish they had followed the book the film was based on instead of focusing on a person who's story took up less than 10 pages of the book. If they had followed the book "Enemy at the Gate", we would have gotten something akin to "The Longest Day" on the eastern front, showing the Stalingrad campaign from the perspective of generals, soldiers, and civilians from both sides.
The movie was based on the book "War of the rats"
@@natrone23
...then why on Earth did the filmmakers decide to use the title of William Craig's book "Enemy at the Gates"? Was it just because it was a snappier title? * sigh * Sometimes I wonder why filmmakers are like this.
On another subject, if you haven't read the book "Enemy at the Gates" I highly recommend it. It's written like a work of fiction but everything was taken from interviews the author did with veterans of the Battle of Stalingrad.
@@benjamingrist6539 Hi Benjamin, just wanted to reply to your comments because, they are about the only sensible ones on here. You seem to be one of the few on here that actually read Craig's book. I saw the movie when it came out, and then my Dad bought me the book for Xmas. My dad was born in england - 1941 (yes he grew up largely in bombshelters), he remembered reading in newspapers when the last German PoWs (from Stalingrad) were released.
My take on the movie was basically - everything in the movie more or less happened as portrayed - it just compressed the events so that the movie wasn't 8hrs long. And in so doing only a handful of characters are focused on. I enjoyed both. Unlike most of the people on here I don't typically go to see an action movie expecting to get a documentary, and the movie wasnt marketed as a documentary. Dont go to see a Hollywood movie then bitch about it being a Hollywood movie. Its pretty straightforward ffs. Haha - thats not aimed at you by the way.
This youtube video - really the guy doesnt make much sense if you actually pay attention to what he is saying. The gist of this youtube video is "it didnt happen this way, the russians didnt do that" etc, then, he outlines how the russians did in fact "do that". Craigs book was amazing. Its been a few years since I read it last. Some of my more memorable parts are General Hans Hube "Der Mensch", the one armed Panzer General. Also late in Der Kessel when it was one of the officers birthdays and they scrounged up a small dinner for him. Sees the meat "dont worry we assure you its not a human being". Then an MP comes by later looking for his police dog. Dark humour.
But you nailed it when you said Craigs book reads like a work of fiction but is based on first hand interviews and primary documents. Not sure if you are a military history buff or not, but Id recommend "Redcoats and Rebels" by Christopher Hibbert. Totally different subject (American Revolution), but the author does a siilar job as Craig - the book reads like a novel almost, but its drawn from primary documents (obviously not first hand interviews lol). Cheers
Since I am frequently having the same discussion, let me quote Antony Beevor's description of Rodimtsev's 13th Guards Rifle Division and the evening attack on the Volga:
"On the riverbank, they were rapidly issued with ammunition, grenades, and rations-bread, sausage, and also sugar for their brew-ups... Chuikov decided not to wait until darkness had completely fallen... the first wave of Rodimtsev's guardsmen did not fix bayonets. They leaped over the sides of boats into the shallow water of the river's edge and charged straight up the steep, sandy bank. In one place, the German's were little more than a hundred yards away... the 39th Guards Regiment on the right charged towards a large redbrick mill, which they cleared in pitiless close quarter combat... [they] suffered 30 percent casualties in the first twenty four hours, but the river bank had been saved."
Antony Beevor - Stalingrad the Fateful Siege 133-135. There is no description of rifle sharing, blocking detachments gunning a failed attack, or the attack failing at all.
Here is Antony Beevor's description of the 284th Division crossing the Volga(Vasily Zaitsev's unit).
"Chuikov, knowing that there would be no let-up, started to bring Colonel Batyuk's 284th Rifle Division, mainly Siberians, across the Volga... on the morning of the 23 of September, a few hours after the last of Batyuk's Siberians had reached the Volga, the division was thrown into the attack in an attempt to clear the Germans from the central landing stage and link up with the Soviet troops isolated south of of Tsaritsa. But the German divisions, although suffering heavy losses, forced them back."
Once again, no rifle sharing, suicide charge, or detail about the attack. Antony Beevor - Stalingrad the Fateful Siege 142-143
The only incident of rifle sharing Beevor explicitly shares was an Opolcheniye group (worker's militia) defending Spartanovka against the attacking 16th Panzer Division:
"Those workers not directly involved in producing weapons for immediate use were mobilized in militia ‘special brigades’ under the commander of the 10th NKVD Division, Colonel Sarayev. Ammunition and rifles were distributed, but many men received a weapon only after a comrade was killed."
Beevor, Antony. Stalingrad (p. 109).
This was a militia unit is defense, again, showing that the film was simplifying the situation. With all of the real-world brutality and dehumanization of Stalin and the USSR, I just believe that relying on the "asiatic horde" motivated by fear trope undercuts the film's argument and stereotypes too much. Like I say in the review, there is plenty of better documented brutality they could have used or shown. I don't believe this argument makes me a "communist sympathizer."
So for anyone who wants to learn more or isn't sure about my conclusions, I invite people to check out some lectures by some leading experts in the field:
Jonathon House -
The Three Alibis - ua-cam.com/video/I98P1AxQRUM/v-deo.html
Final Victories - ua-cam.com/video/VP_QaNU5Uys/v-deo.html
David Glantz - ua-cam.com/video/7Clz27nghIg/v-deo.html
NKVD ....worst than SS troops
@@ktosikification For occupied troops, men underneath them, regular army units having to work with and around them, the fear level they had, blocking detachments, summary executions, I would say both were bad and saying which one is worse is a difficult if not impossible task.
@MainstreamPoPsucks3 what you fail to realize is that TGSNT has evidence and sources that back the documentary just like this video so your argument is based on dense assumption which is typical for someone who isn’t open minded on the subject. There is more documentaries like Europa The last battle,
Which was proved to be factual by a women historian and has sources that come from vailidated historians and The German war against globalism which is a intellectual understanding of the subject. I suggest you watch them and think about what you have been told.
Do the movie " letters from iwo jima "and " my way "
@Mikki Reinhold The author got A LOT wrong..Nearly everything he claimed the soviets didnt do, they did...
While it is also fiction Rachel Weisz experienced a real earth-shattering moment of bliss during the love-making scene with Jude Law, she did an excellent job acting as if she did.
what now?
Ah yes, I am pretty sure Jude Law was actually inside her for that shoot
Wait, what? XD
Another inaccuracy. There was food in the movie.
How's that an inaccuracy?
@@hisexcellencypresidentofre4118 its a joke
@@nuttmc4803 🤣😂🤣 Ah! That moment when you realize it's a joke..lol. thanks btw
there is also another mistake: your existance
@@ucmanhho9457 oof
The funny thing is that if they wanted to make a "communism is bad" war movie so badly they could have set it in the winter war 4 years before stalingrad and have a lot of the NKVD fuckery be fairly accurate.
Yep, they could show the Katyn massacre. Most people probably don't know about that at all.
Yeah! That's the thing that always annoys me, because there certainly isn't any shortage of 'problematic' things that Soviets did during the war (and the preceding Winter War). But nope, it's always fixated on outright falsehoods or half truths, many of which originate from Nazi propaganda.
It is easy to give commands looking through a map but when you actually get on the field you realise how hopelessness of the situation.
This was a great review Jakse. I haven't personally seen the movie but from your review, it does seem to depict a lot of these common USSR soldier tropes. It's just ridiculous how caricaturally and ridiculous we depict the USSR.
@Salvadore Andretti Yo look i found the nazi apologist.
Another book I highly recommend on the topic is Antony Beevor's Stalingrad. An audiobook version is actually here on UA-cam I've probably listened to it 5 times. In Beevor's book one thing that I found incredible was the large number of Russian's that joined the German's in the fight before the encirclement. After the encirclement there was a large number of Germans that joined the Russian side. Needless to say things for the poor Russians that "betrayed" the USSR thing didn't end well.
Yeah, I need to do another dive into all of Beevor’s works. Good recommendation. The idea of the soldiers switching sides is always fascinating and shows just how complex these events are.
Marty Moose: Soviet soldiers came over to the German side after the encirclement, too. They thought the reports of encirclement were false propaganda.
@@HistoryClarified beevor is best.
Why is betrayed in scare quotes? If you defect from the military to another countries and fight your former countries men, that's literally textbook high treason that would get you executed by literally any military at the time.
@@allancastellon9248 Very true, I thought it was fascinating though that both sides were joining the other at Stalingrad in huge numbers. I can't think of another battle that had soldiers jumping sides from both armies. Perhaps this happened in ancient times but in modern wars it's unheard of. My problem with the Soviets was the way they handled their own soldiers that became POW'S. They were literally treated like criminals once they were liberated. In some cases knee liberated they threw them back in the Army to help take Berlin and once they redeemed their selves they were then sent to the gulags. At least Stalin was consistent with this policy even letting his own son die in a German POW camp and refused to trade Paulus for his son. Famously saying you want me to trade a Marshall for a Colonel?
Thank you, UA-cam algorithm. As a Russian I am glad someone calls out the bullshit.
Zaitzeve was a famous sniper before ww2 ! He went into Stalingrad with his own sniper team!
Ive never heard he was a famous sniper before Stalingrad
Keep in mind that German supply lines were stretched so thin and was precious to say the least. They were filling they falks with armies from Romania, Hungary and Italy who did not have weaponry capable of stopping the Soviet Counter offensive.
Exactly, it was kinda the Germans fault for leaving a bunch of underequipped troops to guard their very important flanks.
Thank you for making this critique. Constantly cringe when people cite this as a source for their knowledge of the Eastern front WWII. So many ridiculous tropes that completely misrepresent Soviet people. Just a lame interpretation that has been funneled through a Hollywood filter.
This is maybe the best, to the point explanation on the subject. Excellent material, thank you. You've got a new subscriber
Thank you! I'm happy to provide some other sources and counter-weights to the typical narrative. I hope you enjoy my other content as well.
History Clarified you’re welcome! I’m just getting started ;) As long as your research, objectivity and clarity of explanations stay on the level of this video, you’ll have at least one real fan 😁 take care
Well, the Danilov thinking of the "Hero of the Soviet Union" thing isn't that simple but its down to just what Zaitsev could do.
In his own memoirs, Zaitsev did mention that the fame he got with more kills raked on his belt, more people wanna join him and soon, instead of fighting alone, he became a platoon leader where he personally controlled up to 20 snipers in Mamayev-Kurgan region in Stalingrad alone.
Danilov's plot in the movie is just a play of that. So it's like "Hey you guys, look! Instead of having a medal of a dead warrior from the past, look at this hero's work on the frontlines now and look at the fame he has! Want to be like him? Fight harder, more ruthlessly and gain notoriety like him instead of just getting some cheap metal that could be used for 5 rounds of 7.62x25mm for your Papashaw!". It's not because it hasn't been done that makes it inaccurate but it's accurate in some sense that it's there to trigger the fighting spirit that everyone can be like Zaitsev and be a hero rather than just oogle at some cheap ass medal that's named after a has-been hero.
Wanna hear another joke?
STALINGRAD 2013.
My Name Jeff it is Volgograd now.
Stalingrad 2013 is a movie. It is such a joke with its fantasy charge shit.
@@williamhe1967 The movie is shit but there is not a movie in history with more historical falsification than the Enemy at the Gates.
@@williamhe1967 stalingrad 2013 is kick ass movie idiot.and you hear it from someone who don't like modern days war films...
the German Movie Stalingrad in 1993 is the best, it shows the war is hell, and soviets' defense is not stupid as Hollywood
Well put together video. I spent 4 weeks in Ukraine and Russia touring WW2 battle sites really challenged my view point on what I was taught in school about that area of WW2 history. Memorable part was the Polish POW cemetery in Kharkov
@Gazzara5 Many historians leave out the other army that invaded Poland
They also leave out the part where Poland invaded Czechoslovakia along with the Germans. Talk about stabbing your brother in the back !
Taking back land that was stolen by Chechs during Polish-Bolshevik war. I'm sorry but Polish claim on Zaolzie was totally justified both politically and ethnically where most of Zaolzie was ethnic Poles.
why do u only have 78 subscribers i have seen people with 700,000 subscribers who have terrible content but you make good content and u only have 78?
Thank you for the very kind words! One part could be that I don’t post as much as I should, and I’m hoping to remedy that soon. I’m glad you enjoy the history content, though!
I've seen Logan Paul, caw holy mother of God
You got to start from somewhere.
@History Clarified
I've subscribed to your channel and will place links on some of my videos so others can find you. We have over 3600 videos and 1500 subscribers and focus on World of Tanks battles, but the viewers do enjoy discovering more about WW2.
Wow, thank you. That’s incredibly kind of you.
I read a book of a Stalingrad survivor named der vergessene Soldat and it is said that an assault in a form of a human wave was often made. So pleas History Clarified pleas get your sources right before you state something that is wrong
I post my extensive sources in this video and the one in the description. The 284th and 13th Guards did not fight anywhere near this manner. What usually appeared to Germans as intentional human wave attacks were planned attacks that had bungled command and control issues.
Except for 1 rifle per 2 men nonsense, the worst part for me was the introduction to the press. The director had no clue how soviet journalism functioned.
Vasily destroyed the entire army group south.
Gorazd Psenner. No, his men held positions in the city.
@@markprange238 swoosh
Other Soviet armies destroyed Group B. Chuikov's forces in the city were so bloodied that they could not participate much in the November offensive.
Paulus was finally captured by men of the 64th Army who had advanced through Stalingrad South.
Group South's drive to the southern oil fields was being stopped around the same time that Chuikov's men were stopping the German advance in Stalingrad.
I think it's funny how they try to drastically change things in films for "entertainment" but in reality, The actual history is just as interesting
I agree. I think the plight of the 13th Guards' crossing, or the actual retreat of the 399th, or the real 284th are plenty dramatic on their own, but what do we know?
Actually, usually the real history is more entertaining and better than the movie makers come up with
@@HistoryClarified Really late, but the film would have had some interesting drama if they had a scene with a Soviet officer panicking and ordering an unauthorized retreat. Then, there could've been a part of the movie showing the officer being executed and the soldiers having to either get a new officer or be put in another unit.
Hard to find balanced opinions on Soviet Union. Subscribed.
SeekerOfTruths what?
@@crunch9876 Did I stutter?
SeekerOfTruths intellectually yea you did
SeekerOfTruths seems to be what your doing al I did was ask a question at no point did I give the indication I was trying to argue
@@crunch9876 K
Dude you are talking onlly true things. Thank for pulling me out of "Popular Myths" . Keep up the good work .
Awesome, glad to give you a different perspective! If you are interested in continuing the myth busting, I recommend Jonathan House's lecture on "The Three Alibis" ua-cam.com/video/I98P1AxQRUM/v-deo.html and David M. Glantz's lecture on "The German-Soviet War, Myths and Realities" ua-cam.com/video/7Clz27nghIg/v-deo.html
@@HistoryClarified thank you a lot . I will take a look at those vids . By the way can you make video where you talk about german tanks . I mean everyone is just saying that they were the best and I think if that would be true, they would have won the war , am I right ?
@@__n_lupan__5333 I did a collaborative podcast that should be coming out soon where NBS History and I discuss the German production system. I may do a video on it later, but those wonderful German tanks were incredibly complex when it comes to production. The Germans just couldn't churn out the number of tanks to come close to matching the USSR or the USA, let alone both at the same time. I think it would be interesting to examine and review the movie Fury someday or the like.
@@HistoryClarified i would love a examination of the movie Fury ;).
History and events are often distorted or even glossed over for many reasons, the most common one being to suit political aims. Thanks for your unbiased clarification on the facts of the battle and movie. Why you have so few subs is beyond me. Keep up the good work. You got a new subscriber.
T 34/85 did not appear in Stalingrad, only in January/February 1944
Q: Chuikov where are you?
A: Where smoke is thickiest,....
0:19 Big innacuracy, new shinny Flags.
why ?
Flags get ragged quickly. Also I don't think they fought holding flags and no ine wants to be behind the guy holding the banner "olease shoot me"
One thing you neglect to mention here: The film is named after William Craig's book, yet Zaitsev is just one of many people presented throughout the combat and suffering. His is just one of the more dramatically marketable, and so Hollywood picked it up.
Is there a good Stalingrad film you recommend from the Russian perspective that isn’t full of troupes or propaganda? (I heard the German “Stalingrad” 1993 film is really good).
It is worth watching for a different perspective. It doesn’t go full commissar for the Germans, and other than an attack which, for the Germans, seems a bit clumsy, paints the Soviets as crafty in the desperate city, and focuses on the suffering of the men. Watch it, read Jones and Overy and Merridale along with Beevor, then evaluate.
History Clarified thanks for your prompt reply! I will give it a watch and try the books you recommended. I only saw the clip of the tanks in the snow scene on UA-cam.
History Clarified just finished watching Stalingrad. Brilliant film!
Soviet human waves happened in Finland.
Örkki even the commissars wrote about how bad the training was in Finland (one explicitly noted that they had to train the men to lie down under fire” but Stalingrad was two years and a lot of changes after that.
No. Bad officers ordered repeated attacks on points they could not break through.
This is because after the Purge, the Soviets had very few good officers.
The book Enemy At The Gates was great, and covers the whole battle, and counter offensive. The sniper duel is only a couple of pages in a great book.
My grandpa wrote it ❤
My grandfather faught in russia and guess what, "human wave" is true.
I do a deeper dive and more examination in this video if you are interested: ua-cam.com/video/LYiuGAiIvjY/v-deo.html
It’s even worse then just historically inaccurate. In this Movie the myth of the Jewish commissar lives on. The commissars are not depicted as Jews and the moviemakers almost certainly had no antisemitic intentions but nonetheless they tied on one of the main pillars of the nazi ideology that the Russians would not fight without the (Jewish) commissars behind them.
This movie would be forgettable if it hadn’t such a major impact on pop culture. It never had good reviews and nobody seems to like it but somehow it’s still being around.
The soldier at 2:00 is commissar Aleksei Yeryomenko who was mortally wounded moments after this photo was made. There could not be a bigger contrast to the movie.
I was re-reading Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories" recently and he claims that the commissars forced the men forward into human waves and called it the "Asiatic value of life." It is amazing how historians and journalists allowed a general who earlier argued in his memoirs that the commissar order was just because commissars were evil then influence the commissars to such an extent.
History Clarified
I am not sure if I understand your answer completely (English is not my native language). The myth of the clean Wehrmacht was to a certain degree a reimport. Of course there was a strong desire in Germany for exculpating the German soldiers. But especially during the rearmament of west Germany the was a political desire to create an unsullied German military tradition which new west German army could carry on. The governments in France and Great Britain had to justify why Germany after two world wars should be allowed to have an army once again. So they had no real interest in pointing at the crimes committed by the former enemy. The Desert fox myth is maybe most prominent example of this development. In this political climate people like Manstein or Halder could write their memoirs and promote their truth. Another aspect was of course the anticommunism of this era. These people already fought against the soviets and their message was clear. A victory would have been possible if Hitler hadn’t made the wrong decision. A message that was very well received.
@@740gl7 I completely agree. While the generals wrote their memoirs for their reputations during the Nuremberg times, denazification meant that the Western Allies were very willing to accept them, myths and all, back into the fold. It is no surprise that Halder helped the US military write their official history on the war, and German intelligence concerning the Red Army and its capabilities made it into the US Army Infantry Manual from 1950. I also agree that the Cold War made it so that the sources from the USSR that were translated and were even partially trustworthy were then not taken into the historical account as much as they could have been. As such, the histories of the 1950's and 1960's were incredibly skewed towards German sources, and it has only been with the partial opening of the Soviet Archives that new historians in the West are cleaning up the mess.
@@HistoryClarified I think West Germany embraced these myths especially hard because they never really denazified that much. The cleanup of political and economic nazi collaborators in the soviet sector and later GDR was much more thorough than in the FRG. The student protests that lead to the death of Benno Ohnesorg were to a large part motivated by basically all the former NSDAP members and collaborators except the very highest rung (those at the Nuremberg trials) getting away with it and many still holding positions of prestige and power in politics, economy, academia and military. GDR propaganda was often made fun of because they referred to the NATO forces as fascists, but there was a grain of truth to it because they very much did have more fascists among them than the GDR ever let rise up. Thus to this day revisionism and romantification of the Wehrmacht as "just soldiers fighting for their country, nothing political" are still around while the soviets really do have this "asiatic horde" image to them.
Say what you will about horseshoe theory but at least the commies didn't let the corporations who funded the Nazis keep the wealth they extracted from jewish and POW slave labor.
Amazing video. Glad you made it and I’m sure many people who watched the video also liked it. Great job👍👏👏
The book got it right. Hollywood got wrong. The author spent years researching his book. His accounts from German Italian and Russians depicted the actual accounts. Completely completely unlike the movie.
You forgot about one important book "Behind the Volga there is no land for us" that was a book written by Vasily Zaitsev exatly about hus expirience during the battle for Stalingrad
You sure that's the name of the book? I looked it up and can't find anything.
@@rc59191 I'm not sure about the name in English, but in Russian it is called "За Волгой земли для нас не было" www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4677496/
The name of the book in English is "Notes of a Russian Sniper: Vassili Zaitsev and the Battle of Stalingrad"
I saw the myths in this film repeated so much in the early 2000s, I even remember the first call of duty game having a level based on the movie's opening
I actually did a whole video on that: ua-cam.com/video/LYiuGAiIvjY/v-deo.html
@@HistoryClarified neat, thanks
In the film “Enemy at the Gates”, they carefully treated historical facts - they were postponed and did not begin to be used.
В фильме "враг у ворот" очень бережно отнеслись к историческим фактам - их отложили и не стали использовать.
Лучше вторую часть вашего обалденного коммента перевести (после тире) - they were set aside and never used...
Valentina Craucamp , “их отложили и не стали использовать”, если не увидел
Grateful for your work! can u list me an outline about your point? cause English isn't my mother language, and ..... it really helped for my assignment about that film. Thanks!!!
I'm glad you liked it, and I'm kind of honored that you are using it in a class! Let me know if this is helpful or if you want another breakdown.
The thesis is that the film is trying so hard to portray the Soviets as evil that they muck up the history. While the Soviets did suffer supply issues, the 13th Guards Infantry recorded that they got ammo before crossing the Volga, so that scene is not accurate at all.
The scene also shows commissars machine-gunning retreating men. While there are many records of men being arrested under Order 227 (Not One Step Backwards), the idea of them being machine-gunning perfectly strong fighting men is overplayed. During the September Crisis that the movie shows, 1218 men were arrested, and 21 were shot publicly, while the film would have you believe that any retreat was met with gunfire. Men were afraid of commissars, but it was more likely that they would be arrested and sent back to fight if they retreated without orders.
The last major part of the film is me laughing at the idea that Danilov came up with using heroes to inspire the men of Stalingrad, when the USSR were masters of using propaganda and already had medals and organizations to celebrate people they selected as heroes.
Those are the main points of the film, and hopefully seeing them in print and broken down is a bit easier to follow. Let me know if you need anything else, and thank you for watching!
@@HistoryClarified I got the idea ! Thank you very much for your attention and, your address is added in my work cited page !
Enemy at gates is shit.
On a historical level I agree. What bothers me most is that if this is the only exposure some people have to the Eastern Front, then the myths I described become their whole perception of the conflict and the Red Army.
Good Review. This movie is full of old falsehoods from the cold war era. At the time it came out I remember the guys at work (most of them gun owners) who watched it believed this misleading film about the Red Army and the USSR. I tried to explain that this movie was not historically correct but unfortunately, unless you actually investigate it, it's hard for people to understand. It was easier for the guys at work to just believe the film. The real truth is the Red Army led by the leadership of the USSR won the war in Europe. It couldn't have if they acted like this movie portrays! USA 2019
@Salvadore Andretti Both the Russians and Germans used scorched earth tactics, the Germans a lot more though, they would destroy anything. One of the "good" scorched earth tactics the Soviets used were setting some of their own oil fields on fire, this was a huge blow to the Germans that really needed it.
@Iraq Lobsta!! 45 I own rifles to.
What a lie. The soviet contribute as much to the chaos as they have to beating the german. You seem to forget that the soviet invade other country just because and did way worst than the german in EVERY city they have gone trough.
roftar look at Kiev, when the Germans left it in 1944, 1/6 of the population were found dead from execution. This often happened everywhere on the soviet front. 20 million Soviet civilian died during ww2. The total death toll of both civilian and soldier of Germany is 10 million.
@Iraq Lobsta!! 45 Yeah I did. My bad. I should have made clear how close I was to them. Those guys were my best friends.
Biggest issue is russian soldiers with english accent
I thought Enemy at the Gates was one of the most gut wrenching war movies ever made and is a tremendous story of heroism and valor. Russia lost eight million soldiers killed and 20 million civilians killed during WW2 so its not unbelievable that certain situations played out just like this one. There were days and months into the war where the Soviets were completely routed and decimated for the lack of leadership along with the lack of weoponry. It was a titanic fight between the Nazis and the Soviets and is really the main part of the bitter fighting in WW2.
The Hollywood implication is that such scenes were the norm, though.
I grew up in the East actually talking to veterans from that campaign and I have learned to read Russian unlike most so called western scholars thank God. I have read a lot of Russian texts including some copies of the original reports. This movie is a great comedy to us Slavs, nothing more.
Yes and I red lots of N. Korean reports, turns out they are the greatest countrie in the planet.
@@tamolamo4698 its stupid comment delete it. You re not smart if you wrote it
@@kingslayer2981 Yes and you be be smart. You be funny stable genius :D
@@kingslayer2981 Its not like the Russians are known for altering their documents.
The real issue with Enemy At The Gates is history Vs allegory. It was openly an anti military film and in many ways drew on the classic anti war films made between WW1 and WW2. The result never needed to be "historical"; what they shouldn't have done was tie it to a source that was intended to be a work of historical research.
It's sad really, because the political system can be grossly corrupt and evil, and at the same time, their army can have fought bravely and with purpose and have the battlefield triumphs that are rightfully theirs
So much media about the Red Army can’t understand that.
I actually refuse to watch this movie because of the whole sending men without weapons trope. I don't mind if a movie deviates a little and has a fictional story like saving Private Ryan, it doesn't have to be 100% accurate. At least try to make your movie authentic.
Watch it. It's actualy pretty entertaining movie.
@@oumajgad6805 Entertaning, yes but i prefer some degree of truth. russia was swimming in guns, what they did NOT have, was ammo.
Western military historians have long since made it a life task to overthrow the glory of the red army, please note that.
It is true that because of propaganda and ideological reasons westerns wanted underestimate the Soviets but this doesn't explain the million loses the Soviets had while the German had way lower casualties.
@@buster117 that has nothing to do with that. They fought very inefficient, but they won the war and destroyed the biggest racist ideology ever existed
@@clapper3530 And replaced it with something far worse. Soviet veterans burn in hell
@@Decimalar What the Soviets did to Germany was absolutely nothing compared to what the Nazis had planned for all of Russia. Had the Nazis won in the east, they would have slaughtered every other Soviet citizen, enslaving and deporting all of the rest to make room for a wave of German colonists.
Google Generalplan Ost. It's not fun stuff. Basically the holocaust but designed to eliminate as many Russians as possible.
Also note that Soviet historians have long since made it a life-long task to PRAISE the glory of the Red army. True history is best found from neutral sources.
Why I never watch Hollywood war movies
They're still enjoyable and this movie is amazing.
@@PANZERFAUST90 Yeah, but a stupid as fuck too.
@Carlos Arevalo You jerk
The sniper duel between Maj. Koenig and Zaitsev was distorted from the real duel. Koenig was actually lying in the street, covered only by a sheet of corrugated metal with a large tear in it to allow him an aperture for shooting. In the movie Koenig (Ed Harris) is standing in a rectangular pit covered with metal sheeting held up on the corners by four posts. There was enough room in there for a refrigerator, couch and a TV set. Zaitsev couldn't fail to notice this sniper position. The movie made Koenig's position very roomy to allow the cinematographer to shoot with some light. The real Koenig would have been enveloped in darkness except for light coming in through the tear in his sheetmetal covering.
If it happened at all. There are a lot of doubts about Zaitsev’s memoir and Soviet propaganda surrounding the whole event.
Well, I am glad that you pointed this out. Still impressed how that is not much inaccuracy as movies go.
Web Wanderer I did a newer videos that go into more depth. If you believe Michael K. Jones, then the Volga crossing is very well done. The charge in Red Square gets more complicated.
For anybody who is interested in reading about Stalingrad I would highly recommend "STALINGRAD" by historian Anthony Bevor.
That book was debunked by Historians.
@@alt-monarchist care to elaborate?
Which parts?
Beevor's books are horrid - often full of false facts and commonly debunked by historians
@@thegloriouspyrocheems2277 yes but can you provide an example?
Right so looked it up, can't find much about the book being wrong other than the Ukrainians getting a little upset over the Russian translation.
Great video, unfortunately I have to watch this in history class and it really upsets me because military history is something I already know very well, and seeing the inaccuracies worries me because only 3 people know what actually happened and I don't want my class to get the wrong idea.
DawnFang 7051 yeah, my fear with popular media like this is that it becomes some people’s whole perception of an historical event. People see this and perpetuate “man without the rifle” and the NKVD mass machine-gunning perfectly healthy men that would have been needed for future attacks. If I’m honest, though, it took great time and effort to get into Hill, Glantz, Jones, and House, and to update my knowledge of the Eastern Front.
@@HistoryClarified because of this do you think teachers should be able to show movies like this despite the inaccuracies?
DawnFang 7051 I think of the teacher discusses the inaccuracies or has students review/critically evaluate the film then there is certainly value. I’ll show clips of films in my class, but I always provide context and discuss what is and isn’t accurate.
@@HistoryClarified You have earned a sub
@@dmitrykrushchev9801 Thank you! I hope you enjoy the content.
Enemy at the gates is most accurate when depicting accents
I mean low bar for Hollywood
Few people nowadays remember that the German troops did conquer all the territory of Stalingrad up until the Volga where they were stuck as the Volga was now a hard defense line impossible to cross. It was then that said operation was launched to encircle the 6.th army as the Soviets successfully held the Volga and German troops were running out of reinforcements due to lack of fuel which they ironically wanted to secure via the 6.th army by capturing the oil fields in the lands behind Stalingrad.
aniinnr choque would have said fuck it siege the city and go for das fields
Another Hollywood movie that offends basic level intelligence
Was there a Russian sniper named Vasily Zaytsev fighting at Stalingrad? Yes. Could a WWII combat troop get summarily shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy? Yes, no matter what uniform he was wearing. If they ever did the rifle - ammo - rifle thing it wasn't due to a shortage of ammo. Normal procedure is to strip casualties of their weapons and other gear then clean, inspect and reissue to the new guys. If some were sent into a combat zone without a weapon it was most likely due to a shortage of TIME and a need to get as many as possible into the fight without delay. As for the rest of it... well... Hollywood.
Sure V. Saytsev was an important character the movie portrais him like he alone knocked down the entrire Gruppe B.
This is my kinda man. Answers the question in the first 5 seconds.
If you want historical accuracy, don't look for it in Hollywood movies.
I love these videos and your channel. I just discovered it and as someone who is deeply interested in WWII, I appreciate your excellent Stalingrad videos. May I make a recommendation? There’s this German film from 1993 called Stalingrad and I believe it to be one of the best war films ever made. It’s from the German perspective. I’m not sure if you’ve seen it (If not, then even better) but it would be awesome if you reviewed it like you did in your recent Gangs of New York video. It seems your channel is starting to blow up and I think that reviewing a GOOD Stalingrad film for a change would be greatly appreciated.
I want to look into it, but haven't decided if I will review it a a standalone video, or if I will place it into the greater context of depictions of war crimes in media. I've been doing a script on the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, so Stalingrad has a lot to say that lines up with the research at various times. I also could compare it to Come and See, or Generation War (Unsure Muetter, Unsure Vaeter).
History Clarified Well I hope you do a video examining all of these films to some degree because they’re all some of the best WWII media out there.
That's right this movie is propaganda
thanks for the truth man
Yes, this movie was propaganda. Just like everything that bullshit Hollywood produces.
Actually this man over simplified the battle. And the movie was a close representative of the battle
@@sethlance8009 in real life at what point of the battle did the soviets had a mass charge
@@sethlance8009 ua-cam.com/video/AY6AiL5LLT4/v-deo.html
It was mostly officers rather than the men who were executed for retreating.
Fine video thanks.
I personally knew a german machine gunner veteran of the eastern front who told me that sometimes they killed countless Russians until the barrel of the gun grew so hot that could not fire anymore and when he ran out of spare barrels had to abandon the position.
Again it is Most likely the Case that He lies
the soviets did Not Attack any different than Other armys at the time.
Zaitsev joined the Navy in 1937 and he was a chief petty officer in the Navy and when he volunteered to be sent to the front in the Army the gave him the rank of senior warrant officer.
The biggest error about him in the movie is that they present him as a simple peasant recruit when he arrives which he definitely wasn't.
Though it was true he was in a rifle unit before becoming a sniper but I agree with you
Volokolamsk Highway
The best book I've ever read about WW2 in the Eastern Front from the soviet perspective. Read especially if you think getting executed for running from battle is an atrocity.
That's why Russian elders hated this movie, one of the best videos, you've got a new sub !
Enjoyed your content ! But where’s your reference? - at least sourcing 1 or 2 of your statements would make your content a bit more credible. Keep up the good work!
You know, as I write my script for my huge Stalingrad documentary I've been thinking that I need to do in-video citations instead of posting books at the end/in the description. I also don't talk about where a lot of the Red Army tropes come from with specific accounts and from specific authors. You are right and I'm hoping to be more diligent about it in future. For the time being, a lot of this video was Michael K. Jones "Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed" and David Glantz and Jonathon House's "Stalinrad" series. Thank you for keeping me honest!
This is why I get annoyed when this crap gets pushed as real. Super experienced or not, the soviets were largely responsible for helping the allies defeat the nazis and this propaganda is meant to disparage that help for our own political goals.
I've very surprised hollyturd tried to make the soviets look bad at all.
Video focuses on fact that the film made Stalin's regime "look bad"... oh no guise, poor Stalin!
This "review" is more propagandistic than the film itself.
I wasn’t happy with how I explained my thesis which is why I revisited the topic in this video: ua-cam.com/video/LYiuGAiIvjY/v-deo.html
It has more depth, more sources, and does a better job explaining what I thought.
@@HistoryClarified Cool, I will check it out.
Yep, the Commies are really misunderstood: The gulags? Really just summer camps! The Berlin Wall? It was built for handball! Ban Beatle music? It WAS a Capitalist plot to brainwash Soviet youth! Stalin? Really a nice guy with a cool mustache! Executing 287 of their own men in Stalingrad? No, not executions, ASSISTED SUICIDES!
Of course Enemy at the Gates isn't historically accurate, for one they spoke Russian, not English.
Unfortunately there are a lot of wehraboos and ordinary but ignorant people who watch this stuff and take it at face value. No joke, I've seen many arguments where the Soviets were incompetent madmen who only won through General Winter and massive numbers.
USSR=/= Russia though. There were other languages in the ranks of the USSR. For example, except for communication with other divisions, divisions made up of conscripts from Belarus or Ukraine or Kazakhstan or Armenia or Georgia would speak their language of origin within the ranks. Russian was used as the official language and 2 people with different native languages would speak Russian to eachother, but still Russian wasn't the only thing spoken.
Ofcourse! But That's because it's a movie Gaddimmit!
I suppose you wanted Gladiator to be made in Latin?
The film was designed to catering for the public consumption. Throw in individual heroism, treachery, attractive actress, political intrigue, sometimes reinforcing their views/stereotypes, historic accuracy was the last thing on their mind. I remember reading about Anthony Beevor's book (even he is not entirely impartial with a heavy criticism against Soviet leadership), Russian troops leaving behind their divisional artillery on the east bank, while carrying as much small arms, grenades as they can being ferried across. Resupply was difficult, obsolete Polikarpov Po-2 flew in at night but harassing the enemy and drop ammunition crates however, often damaging them in the process which in turn jamming the weapons.
Yeah, ammunition shortages once on the western bank of the Volga are very well documented, but it was usually a result of the heavy fighting. 13th Guards was late precisely because it had to scrounge rifles, and the 284th division stopped to train. I think Beevor is a very good source, but I’m hoping this review opens people up to also reading Jones to try and get some balance.
Not Hollywood: I did meet an (ex) German soldier, in the 80's, who told me that on the Eastern Front, when they captured a Soviet commissar, they 'shot them out of hand'. This was an era when brutalities did not inspire the revulsion it does nowadays. I am not saying the world is any less brutal in the present, but probably because I am Vietnamese, he felt he could share that story, seeing that my country had just gone through a very violent history
Yeah, the commissar clause is very controversial. It was handed down from Hitler and while some generals deny that they followed it in their memoirs (Guderian), others admitted that they did but claimed that it was worth it due to the brutality of the commissars (Manstein). It is no surprise, then, that Manstein gives an account very similar to the depiction of this film (commissars threatening men into suicidal attacks), though his account was from a breakout attempt during the siege of Sevastopol. History is complicated, and that is something I wanted to try and add to the review. Thank you for sharing.
"blocking units' had many types, and were before Order №227, who was just improvide another type.
Penal battalions were formed for commander staff (oficers; there is no "officers" in Red Army before early 1943), for common soldiers penal companies were organized.
"First crushing victory" was near the Moskow, not to mention earlier battles, but the most important for the campaign of the first year of the war.
SUNchaster yes, you are correct that they existed before order 227 made it all the more explicit.
If the history is wrong, how could we spect that a movie gets it right? Still today many people thinks that it was the US who defeated Nazi Germany
Gotta love how egocentric Hollywood is about how awesome America and Britain were in the the War, and utterly downplay or denounce the Soviet's efforts. Churchill's "Finest Hour" quote pales in comparison to the existential and physical threat the Germans under Hitler posed to the Soviets. Even if Hitler managed to invade Britain (which was impossible for various reasons), they would have mostly been assimilated into the Reich; the Soviet slavs were considered "untermensch" and would have been utterly exterminated. That is one hell of a motivation to fight; too bad most films portray as you say it does: as a totalitarian evil regime forcing its people to fight. Arguably, it was, and the Soviet Union under Stalin definitely qualifies as a totalitarian regime responsible for deaths in the millions. However, that is not the full story.
This event should be Hollywood gold: an understrength, poorly equipped army fighting for its life as an enemy pushes them back against the wall (or river, in this metaphor), with defeat spelling the utter extermination of hundreds of millions of people.
And yet, Hollywood can't get their minds around the idea that these people, who were literally fighting for their lives, would have to take such drastic measures in order to prevent them all from fucking dying.
The U.S. and Britain had the advantage of distance and isolation from the mainland of the major Axis powers, that it is laughable whenever someone suggests the ideas of the Nazis invading the U.S. It's a lot easier to say "We shall never surrender" when your enemy can't touch your mainland.
Dear god, I don't know whether that was coherent or not.
Quite well put. The fighting around and in Yelnya is another great example of what you are talking about.
England was on Europe’s doorstep and the us still had to invade Europe along with Britain and Canada. Also the enemy could touch the mainland they had u boats near the shores hell if the Germans had made an i boat big enough they could’ve invaded also the enemy was close enough to bomb London so I think your comment is more targeted towards the us rather than the allies as a whole considering Canada isn’t mentioned
@@Ghost-S1337
1.) It is targeted to both Britain and the U.S. In the grand scheme, Canada's primary role was as a base for convoy escorts. That and the additional ground troops provided, which I admit were some of the best troops the allies had. However, the 2 most vital Allies are the U.S. and Britain.
2.) Yes, the Germans could easily bomb the British, and their subs could reach the U.S. East Coast and cause damage to shipping. But, considering the sheer scale of the U.S. Naval production in comparison to that of Germany's makes any idea that they'd be able to maintain a U-Boat fleet along the U.S. coast.
Also, I assume by I boat u are either refering to a U-Boat meant for carrying troops or the Japanese I-400 carrier sub. If you are suggesting the Germans could use subs to land troops to strike the U.S. mainland, that is the funniest thing I ever heard. Do you mean a small raiding party or an full-on invasion force? If its the former, I understand they'd be an annoyance to the local systems, but little more. If its the latter, do you have any clue how difficult it would be for the Germans to supply those troop from across the entire Atlantic Ocean? They would not last a month.
2b.) Britain, meanwhile, while once easily bombable by the then potent Luftwaffe, by the time the U.S. entered the war could not achieve air superiority over the island. Maybe they would be able to transfer airwings from a neutralized Soviet front, but if I were a sane man, I'd use those for bomber interception to at least make an allied bombing campaign as bloody and unsustainable as the Battle of Britain had been for England. An Invasion of Britain, a Sealion, could never be done without naval superiority, which again with the American entry was unachievable. German Naval Air units were less then stellar, so yeah, they wouldn't have halted the Royal Navy on its own if it did achieve air superiority as it was planned. The war would be made a stalemate, maybe until the U.S. develops the Atom Bomb. Considering how Hitler refused to surrender in April of 1945, I doubt he would have keeled over when the bomb was dropped on Germany. It wasn't his mindset to surrender; remember he believed in the "Stabbed in the Back" myth: that the German army could have fought on and won WW1 if not for the political elements keeling over to the allies and betraying the millions of Germans who had fought and died in the war. He did not intend for Germany to surrender while they held all the cards. If the Allies wish to defeat Hitler, they have to go in with everything they have in an Operation Olympic level invasion, possibly in '46 at earliest in this scenario. The Germans could easily strip the now quiet Eastern front of mobile divisions to counter this invasion, and even if the Allies succeed in securing a bridgehead, it would be a bloody one. Maybe they could liberate France, but I doubt the Allies, especially Britain, could replace their losses to push through the Sigfried line, or wherever the Germans have halted the enemy advance. Final VIctory would be a close call
By that point, considering a victory at Stalingrad and in the Caucasus, would have resulted in the Soviet military and industry starving for fuel. They would be utterly immobilized and unless a hailmary Operation Uranus style operation manages to reverse the situation immediately following the German victory, the Germans would be able to siphon the resource of occupied Russia to fuel their war machine. Eventually, the Red Army and Airforce would be brought to a standstill. The Germans could then proceed starving out the civilian populations of Belarus and the Ukraine (The Hunger Plan), slowly killing off the better part of the Soviet's population. When D-Day comes in 1946 or later, itll be little too late for them.
Luke Freet I meant the local raiding party’s also put enough in the us you have a full scale invasion force and if the Germans had defeated the soviets that allies still would have defeated Germany not by atomic bombs but by invasion if they had taken over Russia Germany would have lost to much men to easily replace them against the allies also air superiority would have destroyed most German fortifications and factory’s, also if memory serves me right and research aussies were the best troops the allies had not Canadian troops, I do admit the British could not have replaced their losses easily being the disasters they had at the beginning and resources are useless without men to work them which was the crippling factor about Germany, I understand that people grow older to join the war as it goes on but air power would destroy the German population and lessen the manpower of the German military and losing the Caucasus wouldn’t have starved their fuel supply it would have fueled the Germans but as big as Russia is there still would have been plenty of fuel east and the us was providing them with lend-lease aid so they were still getting supplies from the us and still would’ve been
Kind of hard to like a system where
A detachment was used to clear a minefield by running through it
But if you manage to do that - you would get a cup of fresh newborn blood... You know, soviets ...
@Pasha Staravoitau you certainly was propagandist by communist since it was one of the top generals most notable quotes.
@Pasha Staravoitau if we come to a minefield our infantry would attack exactly if it where not there. Georgy Zhukov ,1945. Btw i never said it was common pratice i said it was one of the top generals most notable quotes. And since he was a very powerful man that lead many troops, i would not like to be under him. It was however propangandized later by communist that the war was won by brave soviets, not by dire man who lost everyone and where not much more then beast once arrived in berlin. Much like the germans earlier did to slavic population in russia.
@Pasha Staravoitau russians never were horrible, communist where. Russians had a hard live throughout history. Stalin was just the next ivan the terrible. There where communist supporters but let's be real it was follow Stalin or die. Do you think there where any kind of serious elections? Any kind of feedback system? There where russians who did this but russian communist not russians a big difference.
@Pasha Staravoitau ha fun, oke you can walk to a minefield would you like that huh?
We have to remember, that the movie, is basically a fictional account of a book, by the same title. They glamorized a guy who was by most accounts was just your average person. Also, this story glamorized one of the most brutal battles on history.
Ooooh 2019 brother
Critizes the movie inaccuracies.
Continues to admit the inaccuracies did happen.
There were blocking detachments and executions but they didn’t go down like the way this film portrays. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Excellent video - 900th sub is here
Keep it up!
Wow, I can't even believe it. Thank you for the subscription! I hope you continue to enjoy the content.